Firearms background checks

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm one of that majority who wants background checks improved, but am happy with the no-vote on this one, looking at the text of the bill. It's basically a repeat of the same proposal put out after Sandy Hook, which requires third-party involvement, records keeping, and additional hassle and expense.

"Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good" - Voltaire and others

Might want to show *some* progress here. Waiting around for the perfect bill is just what the gun lobby wants. It'll never happen.

It might, should there be a national emergency declared by a Democratic president though :pac:

Manic Moran wrote: »

The argument works both ways. If they keep proposing legislation that isn't going to pass because they want it their way, then it becomes as political stunt, not a pragmatic policy. Both sides here are failing: Anti-gun for generally proposing things which are more restrictive than will pass, and pro-gun for generally failing to bring up proposals which are likely to.



It's un-necessary, an extra expense in time and money, adds the requirement for records to be kept, which is of more questionable political support, and it doesn't add any tangible benefit to the system. If the desired endstate is "all firearm sales involve a background check", then both mechanisms achieve it. One is more likely to be followed in practice.



You can have a process. Why make it a more difficult/disincentivising process than it needs to be?



Think the idea through. What is the enforcement mechanism for making sure that both parties, when they make an agreement to trade a firearm, take the time, effort and expense to find an FFL and go through that process? How would it differ from the enforcement mechanism that when two folks make an agreement to trade a firearm, that they then-and-there do the background check against the same federal database?

So if you have two different mechanisms for doing a background check, both against the same database, but one is easier/more convenient to do than the other, and both are enforced in the same manner, which is going to have the higher compliance rate, and thus is better to be enacted? There is a tenet of US constitutional law which says that any law enacted for a purpose must be the least-intrustive law possible to achieve the that purpose. I'm kindof happy with that as a general policy for legislation, be it constitutional-related or not.

It's time to start getting intrusive.

Your way kills kids.

Your way is the NRA way your way is the republican party way. Your way kills kids.

The time for getting your back up over a few extra dollars is over. It's gas actually that you get upset over paperwork and a few dollars when kids are shot to death in their dozens in their classrooms.

I'd assume your attitude would change significantly if your own kids schools were involved.

Actually I'm in no doubt. ...... It'll never happen to me.... Yeah?

And just a note. This isn't all Maud Flanders. Think of the kids .. kids actually die every year en masse. That's just plain incredible. Greatest country on earth... So many freedoms .... Etc etc etc etc.

Manic Moran wrote: »

A wonderfully emotive post, full of sentiment and ideology.

Now, if you would care to address the issue?

If the desired endstate is that all firearms sales be conducted with a background check, which I presume is something we agree upon, why is the easiest and least intrusive manner which actually achieves this not the best route? If I can have an app on my 'phone which the government uses to let me into the country, we can probably have an app which can be used to verify firearms eligibility.

But your brilliantly emotive post about intrusion in your liberties and some 'third parties' and extra cost to you... Was what ?


To be frank you are no different to the rest of the gun folks . You will put as many blockers in the way to stifle any checks on guns until it becomes unstoppable. Years of the same years of death.

seamus wrote: »

It's going to be hard I suppose to get a non-polarised discussion about this on an Irish message board, because the attitude to guns is fundamentally flipped.

In the US the attitude is that the individual has a right to a gun unless it can be shown why they shouldn't have one.
Here in Ireland, the individual has no right to a gun unless they can show why they need one.

"Home defence" would be a typical reason for purchasing a gun in the US, but if you put that on your Irish licence application, it would be immediately denied.

I agree with Leroy that boiling the frog is really the only way to approach this. Small measures that restrict firearm availability every so gradually. Along with measures that can't really be considered gun control, but nevertheless have the same effect. Such as educational programmes, guns-for-cash amnesties, etc etc.

Very good point. "Rights" or "access to" are not the big problem in the US, its Reason. Home defence being one of the biggest wrong reasons!

Igotadose wrote: »

Full disclosure, at the time of the tweaker incident I had a concealed carry permit, and we owned firearms. Said firearms stayed in safes at home except for the occasional foray to the shooting range for practice.

So despite you having a permit, you still encountered crime. And those people chasing you would have been aware that there was a possibility that you had a firearm yet it didn't stop them?

Would you having a firearm have made that situation any better?

I understand what you are saying Igotadose. I too live in an area where night time police response can be 'sporadic', and not a crime free area either!

In both the stories you gave, neither required the use (or treat of use) of a gun. Now this goes back to "reason". I look on guns as tools for hunting or competition, not as an item of self defence / offence against a "bad guy". In fact they are the last thing I would think of a means to defend myself or others.

If you swap the word gun for car and marketed cars as a means of self defence - eventually somebody somewhere would drive over somebody else.

I know its a simple matter of a different point of view, and applied to different countries - I have no real knowledge of crime in the US - but the nuclear option of whipping out a gun seems a bit extreme.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Because we know that the NRA will never move willingly to the endstate, they will try to block at every turn. Therefore, it is necessary to take a longer, more complicated, and ultimately a waste of everyones time, route to nudge them gradually.

Like the boiling frog. Make each change so small as to be not worth arguing against on its own but always moving towards the endgame. The clear evidence of how the NRA will block everything shows that this is the only realistic option left.

If even the largest domestic shooting even tin history cannot get the NRA and gun supporters to take the issue seriously then what exactly do you think will? Maybe kids getting shot at school? Nope. Maybe people being killed in a nightclub? Nope. Maybe thousands of deaths a year? Nope.

And any politician that even raises the prospect of tightening gun control is immediately targeted.

So clearly they need a difference approach as the gun supporters are never going to listen to logic on this, it is emotional to them.

ANd on this specifically, this actually highlights the problem. People accept the need to checks and security, but that is for terrorists. The gun is personal and a right and 'ain't nobody touching my guns'. Your proposal of an app is perfectly reasonable. People need licences for cars, documentation to take out a loan, a passport to leave the country, but have you ever looked at the response when somebody tries to say that gun control should be increased? Remember, Trump got a lot of gun owners on the claim that HC was coming after their guns. He didn't even need to say what he was going to do, the fear of HC was enough.

Your boiling frog approach is exactly why the NRA and other Pro 2nd Amendment groups virulently oppose any legislation. I am not a member of, nor in favor of the NRA as it exists currently.

There is an absence of good faith on both sides of the issue. Those on the anti-gun side are clear on their desire for ever harsher restrictions on legal firearm ownership. They are happy to chip away, piece by piece, with "common sense" laws, which are nothing of the sort. Coupled with their general ignorance of basic facts surrounded firearms and ballistics, I have little to no time for their efforts.

They try to frame their arguments under the guise of reducing deaths, yet the ideas put forward do not address the various causes in any substantive fashion. The desire to ban "assault weapons", which in itself is a term without meaning, has already been tried. It didn't do anything to affect a reduction in crime or deaths.

This issue has been argued on here, many times previously, and the facts remain unchanged.

Approx 30,000 people a year die due to firearm related deaths. Roughly 2/3s of those are from suicides. The remainder are from a combination of accidents and murders, with approx 20/80 split. Of that murder number, the majority would be those committed during other criminal activities, i.e. gang violence, and often against other criminals. These figures are backed up by FBI criminal statistics, easily searchable.

Spree killings, such as school shootings account for a fraction of 1% annually. Semi-auto rifles (not assualt weapons) are another tiny fraction per annum.

If society was serious about the goal of reducing DEATHS from firearms, the best way to accomplish that is through a combination of improved mental health care, education on firearms safety and training, and improved policing. Improving background checks, done sensibly and not in a fashion that punishes already law abiding gun owners are a good idea.

All the above requires a long term investment and doesn't lend itself to a nice headline. So instead you have people like Fenstein, who come out with their typically ill informed ideas for magazine restrictions and assault weapons bans, based on cosmetic features, that accomplish nothing except to make life more difficult for gun owners.

So the fact that the US has the highest gun related deaths of any country in the world, whilst other countries suffer from the same levels of mental health problems, education and policing and the one major difference is peoples attitude to guns means nothing?

There can be no argument that restricting the availability and access to guns would not reduce gun related deaths. The only argument is where is the line between personal right and public harm.

IMO, personal firearm for use in home protection seems a decent starting point, on the basis that they are never going to get full restriction. A 6 shooter, low caliber weapon should be enough in all but the worst cases. And in those cases no amount of weapons is probably going to be enough.

If hunting/competitions is your thing, then you should be a member of a club, affiliated and licenced by the state and all weapons stored by that club with sign-off by two people before taking the gun. And a limit to 'borrowing' only one weapon at a time. Clubs could then be liable for any shootings carried out by a person using their registered guns if the policies were not fully followed.

Make all the non standard bullets illegal. Make all but a standard handheld, low caliber gun illegal. Cops are sent out daily with a sidearm and face dangers of all kinds, yet people think they require a machine gun in their house? It makes no sense.

None of the above should be even remotely controversial. But in the US the above would be torn apart. My constitutional rights, don't take my guns, its not too many school shootings, the guy was crazy anyway, people kill people not guns etc etc etc. Its selfishness and fear. That is the only thing that stops the US from becoming a normal society with a normal relationship to guns.

Leroy42 wrote: »

So the fact that the US has the highest gun related deaths of any country in the world, whilst other countries suffer from the same levels of mental health problems, education and policing and the one major difference is peoples attitude to guns means nothing?

There can be no argument that restricting the availability and access to guns would not reduce gun related deaths. The only argument is where is the line between personal right and public harm.

IMO, personal firearm for use in home protection seems a decent starting point, on the basis that they are never going to get full restriction. A 6 shooter, low caliber weapon should be enough in all but the worst cases. And in those cases no amount of weapons is probably going to be enough.

If hunting/competitions is your thing, then you should be a member of a club, affiliated and licenced by the state and all weapons stored by that club with sign-off by two people before taking the gun. And a limit to 'borrowing' only one weapon at a time. Clubs could then be liable for any shootings carried out by a person using their registered guns if the policies were not fully followed.

Make all the non standard bullets illegal. Make all but a standard handheld, low caliber gun illegal. Cops are sent out daily with a sidearm and face dangers of all kinds, yet people think they require a machine gun in their house? It makes no sense.

None of the above should be even remotely controversial. But in the US the above would be torn apart. My constitutional rights, don't take my guns, its not too many school shootings, the guy was crazy anyway, people kill people not guns etc etc etc. Its selfishness and fear. That is the only thing that stops the US from becoming a normal society with a normal relationship to guns.

You are for calibre restrictions and and major controls on hunters and target shooters, but want to allow people have "6 shooters" to defend their homes?

Pretty much the exact opposite of the system in place here, which imo works well.

mrbrianj wrote: »

You are for calibre restrictions and and major controls on hunters and target shooters, but want to allow people have "6 shooters" to defend their homes?

Pretty much the exact opposite of the system in place here, which imo works well.

Just to clarify, no I am not advocating for any firearm ownership. However, I appreciate that people will never fully give up their guns in the US, and that fear is a major factor over there despite the evidence that guns makes no appreciable difference to crime rates.

I am trying to put forward a solution based on the realities. As Seamus pointed out, the US have a completely different POV on firearms than we have. It is somewhat similar to what we have in terms of alcohol. Seems we get very upset if anybody tries to tell us about the dangers or attempt to reduce our access (BTW I am not saying alcohol and forearms are the same, merely talking from a physiological POV).

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Your boiling frog approach is exactly why the NRA and other Pro 2nd Amendment groups virulently oppose any legislation. I am not a member of, nor in favor of the NRA as it exists currently.

There is an absence of good faith on both sides of the issue. Those on the anti-gun side are clear on their desire for ever harsher restrictions on legal firearm ownership. They are happy to chip away, piece by piece, with "common sense" laws, which are nothing of the sort. Coupled with their general ignorance of basic facts surrounded firearms and ballistics, I have little to no time for their efforts.

They try to frame their arguments under the guise of reducing deaths, yet the ideas put forward do not address the various causes in any substantive fashion. The desire to ban "assault weapons", which in itself is a term without meaning, has already been tried. It didn't do anything to affect a reduction in crime or deaths.

This issue has been argued on here, many times previously, and the facts remain unchanged.

Approx 30,000 people a year die due to firearm related deaths. Roughly 2/3s of those are from suicides. The remainder are from a combination of accidents and murders, with approx 20/80 split. Of that murder number, the majority would be those committed during other criminal activities, i.e. gang violence, and often against other criminals. These figures are backed up by FBI criminal statistics, easily searchable.

Spree killings, such as school shootings account for a fraction of 1% annually. Semi-auto rifles (not assualt weapons) are another tiny fraction per annum.

If society was serious about the goal of reducing DEATHS from firearms, the best way to accomplish that is through a combination of improved mental health care, education on firearms safety and training, and improved policing. Improving background checks, done sensibly and not in a fashion that punishes already law abiding gun owners are a good idea.

All the above requires a long term investment and doesn't lend itself to a nice headline. So instead you have people like Fenstein, who come out with their typically ill informed ideas for magazine restrictions and assault weapons bans, based on cosmetic features, that accomplish nothing except to make life more difficult for gun owners.

In summation. Its mostly people shooting themselves (thats grand)
The rest of that are criminals shooting each other (thats grand)


And only 300 or so people per year are killed in a mass murder attack.

All acceptable figures so that i can have the fascade of safety in my home when all statistics show that those with guns are no more safe because they are not generally 'ready' for an attack on them nor trained to deal with it rationally.



Superb!

Do nothing then.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You have failed to articulate how your proposals would effectively reduce gun related deaths. Simply comparing rates of mental health issues and gun ownership to other countries ignores the vast differences in available treatments or the nature of crime.

I did. Other countries which much striker gun laws but the same other issues have significantly less gun deaths than the US. But you're argument is the wrong way around. We know the possible negatives to gun ownership, but what are the positives? Is there any evidence that this massive freedom to own guns in the US has any material reduction effect on crime?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You are a self described advocate against gun ownership in general and from the ideas you put forward above, you don't take into account some fundamental facts.

Restricting calibers is a meaningless concept in the scenario you've outlined. If I am keeping a firearm with a view to self defense, the implicit assumption is that it is inherently lethal. To what purpose should I look to decrease the potential efficacy of my response, when my life or that of a loved one is in danger? What's the goal there?

I am no gun expert, but I would wager that there is a caliber of bullet that is capable of stopping an attacker within short range but would only cause minor (as in less than death) injury from further out.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Can you define a non-standard round for me? For example, if I am into long distance shooting, I want a bullet with a specific shape and contour, to achieve maximum aerodynamic efficiency. If I am a hunter, I may want a bullet that will deform or tumble, to allow me to kill my prey in the most immediate fashion. If I am carrying a pistol, I want to use a round that can quickly kill a person without over-penetrating their body or the surroundings. A round designed to deform upon impact likely best accomplishes that.

You have answered your own question. A round that is designed to kill a person from short range. So do away with the other types (hollow points etc). Again, I am not gun expert, so would leave the details to experts. If you are hunting then the club controls the ammo and if certain ammo is required it is counted out and accounted for.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

As to your talk about requiring club memberships, I think you know well enough that that would be unconstitutional, right off the bat.

Ever hear of an Amendment? The 2nd Amendment is exactly that. So why should we simply stop making amendments now? Change the constitution. The idea is to reduce the gun related deaths.

As I said in any other country my ideas would be perfectly reasonable but in the US they are seen as an outright attack. But people accept the exact same provisions in other areas. People need a licence to drive a car. They need to be a certain age. You can't simply buy whatever chemicals you want. you are not allowed own nuclear weapons. The solution to the problem is on one hand rather simple, but unfortunately on the other it is very difficult and many Americans value their own rights own the security and lives of others.

'I want my toy and if that means others will die then that is a price worth paying'. You can dress up with in terms of the constitution but it all boils down to that.

I did. Other countries which much striker gun laws but the same other issues have significantly less gun deaths than the US. But you're argument is the wrong way around. We know the possible negatives to gun ownership, but what are the positives? Is there any evidence that this massive freedom to own guns in the US has any material reduction effect on crime?

You again fail to address the salient point. The level of mental health issues might be statistically similar in say Canada, as in the US. I would wager that the resources available for treatment are markedly poorer in the US. That is where I would start, if I was looking to reduce deaths, as suicide is the highest contributor by far.

As to you second part, there multiple benefits to gun ownership. Hunting, sport, personal self defense, defense against tyranny (which you and others are always quick to rubbish). Crime rates have been falling in general for decades, which includes periods of harsher restrictions on ownership (Assault Weapons Ban) and periods of looser restrictions. I haven't seen any statistics one way or another.

I am no gun expert, but I would wager that there is a caliber of bullet that is capable of stopping an attacker within short range but would only cause minor (as in less than death) injury from further out.



You have answered your own question. A round that is designed to kill a person from short range. So do away with the other types (hollow points etc). Again, I am not gun expert, so would leave the details to experts. If you are hunting then the club controls the ammo and if certain ammo is required it is counted out and accounted for.

Define short range. Why place any impediment on someone's ability to defend themselves. Your scenario accepts the reality of a person owning and employing a firearm in a lethal fashion, what is the purpose of reducing calibers etc. Should all knives be restricted in blade length so as to prevent excess penetration of the human body? You also somewhat ironically say hollow points should be banned, when they are the type of round most apt to fit the confines of your scenario.

Ever hear of an Amendment? The 2nd Amendment is exactly that. So why should we simply stop making amendments now? Change the constitution. The idea is to reduce the gun related deaths.

As I said in any other country my ideas would be perfectly reasonable but in the US they are seen as an outright attack. But people accept the exact same provisions in order areas. People need a licence to drive a car. They need to be a certain age. You can't simply buy whatever chemicals you want. you are not allowed own nuclear weapons. The solution to the problem is on one hand rather simple, but unfortunately on the other it is very difficult and many Americans value their own rights own the security and lives of others.

By all means, start a movement, make your case. As it stands, firearm ownership is a right, unlike car ownership. If the Constitution changes then that's the law folks ought to abide by.

'I want my toy and if that means others will die then that is a price worth paying'. You can dress up with in terms of the constitution but it all boils down to that.

Do you feel the same way about other guaranteed rights? How many people have been driven to kill by the words of others or a religious text?